Theoretical Prepositions Of Alienation, By Karl Marx
You cannot classify yourself as a Marxist without wanting active change:
“Thus far the philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point however, is to change it” (Marx and Engles 1998).
One of Marx’s key theoretical propositions was his concept of Alienation. He argued that Alienation was a natural consequence of capitalism: his argument was that workers were being manipulated by capitalist companies in order to increase productivity and consequently the output of that company. The capitalist companies allocate workers with activities that are solely oriented towards a specific goal/objective, as though the worker is simply an instrument in their success and thus this leads to the loss of personal identity.
Marx’s theory of Alienation was put forward in the mid nineteenth century. This was a period which was actually characterised by the ever growing rise of capitalism. He argued that the capitalist system was based upon reinforcing the divisions of class. This Alienation theory even seems relevant today.
His first premise argued the fact that workers were being alienated with the jobs in which they had to perform. Their job duties were controlled by capitalism and therefore were often made very repetitive and mundane tasks; there wasn’t much variety and workers skills were not being used to their full …show more content…
The idea of competition had destroyed all notion of working together: collaboration and cooperation were no longer being seen as a valuable trait.
Another of Marx’s key theoretical preposition is ‘Modes of Production’. This is a Marxian concept, a very abstract one at that. It refers, not only to a particular technique or technology of production but instead is a concept that focuses on the means of production (tools, land, techniques etc.) which are owned and used.
Marx argued that there was only a few ‘modes of production’, the main three being: capitalism, feudalism and ancient slavery. There are others including; colonial mode and Asiatic mode. However it is these modes which are more often attacked and criticised.
He argues, in his ‘Critique of Political Economy’ that it is essential that we understand the modes of production in order to understand anything about society. It is essential that we are able to identify who produces and who appropriates the surplus product in our economic